Barry defends oil, gas lawsuit

John Barry came to Lake Charles last
week and made a convincing argument that oil, gas and pipeline companies
should help
finance restoration of Louisiana’s coast. Barry is the former
member of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East
who came up with the idea of filing a lawsuit against nearly 100
of those companies.

Reaction to the lawsuit that was filed
last July has been swift and fierce. Gov. Bobby Jindal came out
swinging, saying the
levee authority had been hijacked by trial lawyers. And that
argument may be the strongest in what promises to become a major
battle at the regular session of the Louisiana Legislature that
begins March 10. One bill filed by state Sen. Robert Adley,
R-Benton, an industry supporter, would make it possible for Jindal
to appoint a levee board more sympathetic to killing the
lawsuit.

The trial lawyer argument has a
familiar ring in these parts. Some local attorneys became overnight
millionaires in 2000 when
former state Attorney General Richard Ieyoub had them participate
in the state’s lawsuit against tobacco companies. Their
fees came from the tobacco companies, so there wasn’t much of a
public uproar. However, the levee suit legal fees that would
come from any possible industry settlement would reduce the amount
of money available for coastal restoration.

Barry said hiring attorneys on a
contingency basis was the only way a trial could be financed. Under a
contingency fee arrangement,
attorneys agree to represent plaintiffs and only get paid if they
win. The attorneys also pay expert witness fees and other
costs up front.

“No lawyer ‘hijacked’ us,” Barry said last August. “The suit was our (the levee board’s) idea, and I personally engaged in
a long search for the best lawyer I could find. The industry forced us to sue by refusing to take corrective action.”

Another argument Jindal and other opponents will make against the lawsuit is that there is already a $50-billion, 50-year
coastal restoration plan in place. It will be partially financed with additional federal oil and gas revenue in 2017.

Barry said that plan won’t completely
compensate for the land loss that will occur over the next 50 years. He
quotes from
a 2012 coastal master plan that says, “A budget of $100 billion
would allow us to achieve a net gain of land even under less
optimistic coastal conditions.”

“Louisiana’s Disappearing Coast: A
Crisis” is a report compiled by Restore Louisiana Now, a non-profit
group formed by Barry.
It contains aerial views of a number of coastal areas and shows
the effect that oil and gas canals have had on coastal erosion
over the years. Barry said a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey indicated
that oil and gas “was responsible for 36 percent of land
loss.” The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shares some of the blame
for land losses caused by levees.

A public opinion poll done by Barry’s
group — which opponents of the lawsuit will also try to discredit —
shows that 77 percent
of those who were surveyed believe loss of coastal wetlands and
marshes is an issue that needs to be addressed. And 37 percent
of those polled “strongly agree” that drilling by the oil and gas
industry contributed to the land loss. Another 35 percent
“somewhat agree.”

Seventy-four percent of those polled
don’t want the Legislature to intervene in the lawsuit, and 90 percent
say oil and gas
companies should pay for restoring wetlands where they drilled.
Sixty-two percent of those who were polled in Southwest Louisiana
(Acadia, Calcasieu, Cameron and Jeff Davis parishes) don’t want
the Legislature involved in trying to stop the suit.

Chris John, president of the Louisiana
Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association, last August said the oil and gas
industry has
the state’s best interests at heart. He said the industry for the
past two decades has implemented processes and dedicated
resources to restoration and preservation efforts. Protection of
the wetlands also protects critical oil and gas infrastructure
located along the coast, he said.

Suit opponents insist the oil and gas
industry followed state regulations that existed in the 1930s, 40s and
50s, so they
aren’t responsible for the land loss. Barry counters that the
state Department of Natural Resources was closely allied with
the industry in those early years and the regulations weren’t
enforced.

“At some point, we need to figure out whether someone who broke something and said they were going to fix it is going to be
held to their promise,” Barry said last August.

Blaine LeCesne, a tort law professor at Loyola University in New Orleans, talked with The Times-Picayune about the suit shortly
after it was filed.

“This is such an unprecedented lawsuit,” he said. “There has never been a claim of this magnitude affecting such enormous
amounts of land that has tested these statutes like this will.”

LeCesne offered what might be the best possible solution to this coastal restoration problem.

“I really think this is the ultimate goal of the levee authority here: to bring the oil companies to the bargaining table,”
he said. “It’s a way of bringing attention and shedding some light on the problem, and it may very well lead to some joint
resolution to assist in future coastal restoration efforts.”

The citizens would be well-served if that happened. Otherwise, it should be the job of the courts, not the governor or the
Legislature, to resolve the issue.l

Jim Beam, the retired editor of the American Press, has covered people and politics for more than five decades. Contact him at 494-4025 or jbeam@americanpress.com.